Incorrect balance from bank causes incorrect projections (edited)
Comments
-
Got it. Ok, I'm going to do some "free thinking" (i.e. throwing mud at the wall to see what if anything sticks) here with NO claim to any particular expertise or knowledge of the inner workings and programing of QS let alone your credit union. These thoughts are purely my own with no intention of being accurate or useful.
Related, because of this, the projected balance for the "past" (to the left of the current date line) gets shifted as well…this shouldn't shift at all, this should 100% be based on transactions as all of that data is recorded.
I fully agree that the balance to the left of the current date line is no longer a "projection" but is now actual hard data for those pervious dates. The problem in my mind seems to be that that data was not correct to begin with and thus the shift when correct data is reported. Again, without actually experiencing what you are describing I'm just shooting in the dark so to speak.
However, at some point when the account syncs with [Quicken Simplifi], the balance reported by the bank is $150 (taking the transaction into account), but they aren't reporting the $50 dollar transaction to [QS], for whatever reason. So [QS] adjusts downwards: the current balance now is $150, but it still thinks there's a $50 transaction coming, so the projected balance shows as $100…which will never be the case in reality.
AS far as I understand it, this is how QS is designed to work. Have you tried changing the way QS handles pending transactions? Have you tried entering the missing transaction(s) as you wait for the transactions to catch up with what your bank is doing?
The solution seems simple, to me anyway, because it's basic math: don't alter the balance unless you've got a transaction that can account for it, that would solve the entire problem and I don't understand why the system doesn't do this, and why when I brought it up last time it was blown off. I was told to make a feature request, so here it is.
I feel the frustration here. But, again as far as I know, QS is working exactly as designed - To "hold" the balance unless the missing transactions is actually present in the data download, would require a substantive change in how Accounts are handled in QS. I'm sure I'm not fully understanding the issue, but as I see it QS is not the problem, the problem seems to me to lie with the way your institution is handling and reporting your account data.
The short version, as best as I can tell, is that the projected cash flow takes into account whatever the
currentbalance is being reported from an account, regardless if that aligns with the transactions it's been able to download.This is where I get a bit lost. If a transaction has been downloaded and QS is ignoring it for some reason, this is a QS problem. But you seem to indicate that the balance projection is off in QS because a particular transaction is not included in the downloaded data even though the bank has processed that transaction and since QS doesn't receive a record of a recurring transaction having been cleared it doesn't clear the recurring reminder and continues to include it for projection purposes. If you manually enter the missing cleared transaction including linking it to the appropriate reminder, would this correct the issue?
Also, as an aside, "projection" as used here is by definition an estimate or best guess based on available data.
OK, that's enough of that. As I said, I'm pretty much throwing mud at the wall so to speak. As far as the feature request issue, that might be something to consider creating since you are making a suggestion to change or add functionality to QS.
Danny
Simplifi user since 01/22
”Budget: a mathematical confirmation of your suspicions.” ~A.A. Latimer0 -
I don't know really how to explain it different than I have elsewhere, so this is just my last best repetition, trying to keep it condensed:
It's not a matter of pending or not transaction. It's a matter of Simplifi gets an update to the balance but does NOT get an update to the transactions, so the balance gets updated with no corresponding transaction. The fact that I have the transaction planned is what screws up the projection, because the balance reflects the transaction but Simplifi doesn't know that, so for it's projection it's calculating the transaction on top of the balance that has already accounted for the transaction (by the CU).
An example:
- Start with a cleared and correct balance of $200 dollars and a planned transaction of $100. This correctly projects the balance to $100 after that transaction.
- Simplifi gets a balance update from the CU, setting the new balance to $100 dollars. They don't get any transaction updates though.
- Simplifi now, with the balance of $100 and still has the planned transaction of $100 lined up. So now the projected balance is $0 after projecting that transaction. This is the problem.
Math is the solution: for step 2, if simplif gets a balance update, but doesn't have any transactions that math from $200 to $100, then keep showing the balance of (and computing the projection from) $200, since this is the actual cleared balance, as far as Simplifi is concerned. It doesn't have a pending or cleared transaction to account for the reduction in balance…so don't reduce the balance.
Perhaps this means having a separate display state for the balance/projection. But that shouldn't be at all difficult to do from a functional standpoint. But if they do nothing, then projected balace is absolutely useless becuase it is left to me to try to figure what the actual balance it is that the projection is starting from and if a planned transaction has already been applied to the balance or not.
Your suggestion about added a manual transaction can correct the projection, but I still would have to take the time on a regular basis to figure what the correct balance should be for the beginning of the projection and manually make a change (or not). None of this should be necessary and this cleared vs not balance is an extremely common idea that personal finance software has been doing for decades, including Simplifi own name sake.
If that doesn't make sense, then I'm sorry, I don't know how to better explain it.
Dave
2 -
Hello @everydave,
Thanks for your patience. I have added you to the bug report ticket and will be sure to follow up when we have more information going forward.
-Coach Jon
CTP-11351CTP-114790 -
Jon,
Thanks, is there a user level view of the ticket so I can monitor progress on it?
0 -
Hello @everydave.
There is not, as this ticket is submitted to our product team. However, we will be sure to update you on the status of the ticket as we receive new information.
Thanks,
Coach Jon
0 -
Great, thanks,
Dave
0 -
Hello @everydave,
We have created an alert for this known issue. I would suggest following the alert for updates going forward!
Thanks,
Coach Jon
0 -
Perfect, thank you!
1 -
Hello @everydave,
Just checking in with an update from our product team on this issue. The program bug has been resolved and a fix has been deployed. Can you verify that it is working properly for you?
-Coach Jon
1 -
Jon,
I saw the announcement a few days ago and have been monitoring. So far I've not seen the issue crop up, but I've not had a transaction that previously would have triggered it. I've got two coming up (on the 18th and the 20th) that should expose it if it's not fixed. I'll keep you posted.
Dave
2 -
@Coach Jon Following up, things look solid! Thanks to you and the rest of the team for squashing this one, I feel like I trust the projection again.
0 -
0
